More than 30% of all pregnancies in the UK require some form of assistance at delivery, with one of the more severe forms of assistance being an emergency Caesarean section (ECS). Previously it has been shown that the likelihood of a delivery via ECS is positively associated with the birth weight and size of the newborn and negatively with maternal height. Paternal height affects skeletal growth and mass of the fetus, and thus might also affect pregnancy outcomes. We hypothesized that the effect of newborn birth weight on the risk of ECS would decrease with increasing maternal height. Similarly, we predicted that there would be an increase in ECS risk as a function of paternal height, but that this effect would be relative to maternal height (i.e., parental height differences). We used data from the Millennium Cohort Study: a large-scale survey (N = 18,819 births) with data on babies born and their parents from the United Kingdom surveyed 9 to 12-months after birth. We found that in primiparous women, both maternal height and parental height differences interacted with birth weight and predicted the likelihood of an ECS. When carrying a heavy newborn, the risk of ECS was more than doubled for short women (46.3%) compared to tall women (21.7%), in agreement with earlier findings. For women of average height carrying a heavy newborn while having a relatively short compared to tall partner reduced the risk by 6.7%. In conclusion, the size of the baby, the height of the mother and parental height differences affect the likelihood of an ECS in primiparous women.
References
[1]
Neilson J, Lavender T, Quenby S, Wray S (2003) Obstructed labour. British Medical Bulletin 67: 191–204.
[2]
World Health Organization (2005) Make every mother and child count. Geneva: Available: http://www.who.int/whr/2005/en/index.htm？l. Accessed 2011 May 26.
[3]
National Health Statistics, Maternity statistics (2005) Information Centre for Health and Social Care, England. Available: www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/mate？rnityeng2005/NHSMaternityStatistics26050？6_PDF.pdf. Accessed 2011 May 26.
[4]
Bresler JB (1962) Maternal height and the prevalence of stillbirths. Am J Phys Anthropol 20: 515–517.
[5]
Camilleri AP (1981) The obstetric significance of short stature. Eur J Obstet Gyn R B 12: 347–356.
[6]
Kappel B, Eriksen G, Hansen KB, Hvidman L, Krag-Olsen B, et al. (1987) Short stature in scandinavian women: An obstetrical risk factor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 66: 153–158.
[7]
Thomson AM, Billewicz WZ (1963) Nutritional status, maternal physique and reproductive efficiency. P Nutr Soc 22: 55–60.
[8]
Chan BC-, Lao TT (2009) The impact of maternal height on intrapartum operative delivery: A reappraisal. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 35: 307–314.
[9]
Kirchengast S, Hartmann B (2007) Short stature is associated with an increased risk of caesarean deliveries in low risk population. Acta Med Lit 14: 1–6.
[10]
Adadevoh SWK, Hobbs C, Elkins TE (1989) The relation of the true conjugate to maternal height and obstetric performance in Ghanaians. Int J Gynecol Obstet 28: 243–251.
[11]
Awonuga AO, Merhi Z, Awonuga MT, Samuels T, Waller J, et al. (2007) Anthropometric measurements in the diagnosis of pelvic size: An analysis of maternal height and shoe size and computed tomography pelvimetric data. Arch Gynecol Obstet 276: 523–528.
[12]
Baird D (1949) Social factors in obstetrics. Lancet 1: 1079–1083.
[13]
Trevathan W, Rosenberg K (2000) The shoulders follow the head: Postcranial constraints on human childbirth. J Hum Evol 39: 583–586.
[14]
Sandmire HF, O'Halloin TJ (1988) Shoulder dystocia: Its incidence and associated risk factors. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 26: 65–73.
[15]
Shy K, Kimpo C, Emanuel I, Leisenring W, Williams MA (2000) Maternal birth weight and cesarean delivery in four race-ethnic groups. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182: 1363–1370.
[16]
Read AW, Prendiville WJ, Dawes VP, Stanley FJ (1994) Cesarean section and operative vaginal delivery in low-risk primiparous women, Western Australia. Am J Public Health 84: 37–42.
[17]
Witter FR, Caulfield LE, Stoltzfus RJ (1995) Influence of maternal anthropometric status and birth weight on the risk of cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 85: 947–951.
[18]
Parrish KM, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Connell FA, LoGerfo JP (1994) Effect of changes in maternal age, parity, and birth weight distribution on primary cesarean delivery rates. JAMA 271: 443–447.
[19]
Turner MJ, Rasmussen MJ, Turner JE, Boylan PC, MacDonald D, et al. (1990) The influence of birth weight on labor in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 76: 159–163.
[20]
Nesbitt TS, Gilbert WM, Herrchen B (1998) Shoulder dystocia and associated risk factors with macrosomic infants born in California. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179: 476–480.
[21]
Langer O, Berkus MD, Huff RW, Samueloff A (1991) Shoulder dystocia: Should the fetus weighing greater than or equal to 4000 grams be delivered by cesarean section? Am J Obstet Gynecol 165: 831–837.
[22]
Brabin L, Verhoeff F, Brabin BJ (2002) Maternal height, birthweight and cephalo pelvic disproportion in urban Nigeria and rural Malawi. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 81: 502–507.
[23]
James DK, Chiswick ML (1979) Kielland's forceps: Role of antenatal factors in prediction of use. Br Med J 1: 10–11.
[24]
Merchant KM, Villar J, Kestler E (2001) Maternal height and newborn size relative to risk of intrapartum caesarean delivery and perinatal distress. BJOG 108: 689–696.
[25]
Catalano PM, Drago NM, Amini SB (1995) Factors affecting fetal growth and body composition. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172: 1459–1463.
[26]
Knight B, Shields BM, Turner M, Powell RJ, Yajnik CS, et al. (2005) Evidence of genetic regulation of fetal longitudinal growth. Early Hum Dev 81: 823–831.
[27]
Shields BM, Knight BA, Powell RJ, Hattersley AT, Wright DE (2006) Assessing newborn body composition using principal components analysis: Differences in the determinants of fat and skeletal size. BMC Pediatr 6: 24.
[28]
Veena SR, Kumaran K, Swarnagowri MN, Jayakumar MN, Leary SD, et al. (2004) Intergenerational effects on size at birth in south india. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 18: 361–370.
[29]
Godfrey K, Walker-Bone K, Robinson S, Taylor P, Shore S, et al. (2001) Neonatal bone mass: Influence of parental birthweight, maternal smoking, body composition, and activity during pregnancy. J Bone Miner Res 16: 1694–1703.
[30]
Wills AK, Chinchwadkar MC, Joglekar CV, Natekar AS, Yajnik CS, et al. (2010) Maternal and paternal height and BMI and patterns of fetal growth: The pune maternal nutrition study. Early Hum Dev 86: 535–540.
[31]
Bellows RA, Short RE, Richardson GV (1982) Effects of sire, age of dam and gestation feed level on dystocia and postpartum reproduction. J Anim Sci 55: 18–27.
[32]
Colburn DJ, Deutscher GH, Nielsen MK, Adams DC (1997) Effects of sire, dam traits, calf traits, and environment on dystocia and subsequent reproduction of two-year-old heifers. J Anim Sci 75: 1452–1460.
[33]
Mee JF (2008) Prevalence and risk factors for dystocia in dairy cattle: A review. Vet J 176: 93–101.
[34]
Barkema HW, Schukken YH, Guard CL, Brand A, van der Weyden GC (1992) Cesarean section in dairy cattle: A study of risk factors. Theriogenology 37: 489–506.
[35]
Brunner Huber L (2007) Validity of self-reported height and weight in women of reproductive age. Matern Child Health J 11: 137–144.
[36]
Dex S, Joshi H (2004) Millennium cohort study: First Survey—A User's guide to initial findings. London, United Kingdom: Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University of London. pp. 1–291.
[37]
Mocanu EV, Greene RA, Byrne BM, Turner MJ (2000) Obstetric and neonatal outcome of babies weighing more than 4.5 kg: An analysis by parity. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 92: 229–233.
[38]
McGuinness B, Trivedi A (1999) Maternal height as a risk factor for caesarean section due to failure to progress in labour. Aust NZ J Obstet Gyn 39: 152–154.
[39]
Guegan JF, Teriokhin AT, Thomas F (2000) Human fertility variation, size-related obstetrical performance and the evolution of sexual stature dimorphism. Proc Biol Sci 267: 2529–2535.
[40]
van Roosmalen J, Brand R (1992) Maternal height and the outcome of labor in rural Tanzania. Int J Gynecol Obstet 37: 169–177.
[41]
Pawlowski B (2003) Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proc Biol Sci 270: 709–712.
[42]
Courtiol A, Raymond M, Godelle B, Ferdy J- (2010) Mate choice and human stature: Homogamy as a unified framework for understanding mating preferences. Evolution 64: 2189–2203.
[43]
Agresti A, Coull BA (1998) Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat 52: 119–126.
